Velocity Bull**** (shens Fps Claims)

so, I've now requested three times on this thread for a list of shot velocities. 20 or more shots over the chono - write them down, when you get home, wipe off your paint-y little fingers and come here and type them in. CP and I will even do the math for you.

Show me your numbers!

I think we've had one response so far that's accurate - which was paintballer9876 claiming +/- 8. I belive that. the rest of the +/- 2 or 3 guys - no way, you're simply not getting those numbers.

If you really think you are - test it. 20 or more shots, post all of them.

so, I've now requested three times on this thread for a list of shot velocities. 20 or more shots over the chono - write them down, when you get home, wipe off your paint-y little fingers and come here and type them in. CP and I will even do the math for you.

Show me your numbers!

I think we've had one response so far that's accurate - which was paintballer9876 claiming +/- 8. I belive that. the rest of the +/- 2 or 3 guys - no way, you're simply not getting those numbers.

If you really think you are - test it. 20 or more shots, post all of them.

I'm not sure I understand how this works.

Bear with me now:

Let's say I shoot my gun 150 times over the chrono. Of those 150 shots, 146 are within +/-5 fps of each other. However four of them go above this +/-5 by let's say 1-3 fps.

For all intents and purposes for the sport of paintball, shouldn't this still be considered +/- 5? Aren't you guys just being a tad bit anal about a technicality?

Let's say I shoot my gun 150 times over the chrono. Of those 150 shots, 146 are within +/-5 fps of each other. However four of them go above this +/-5 by let's say 1-3 fps.

For all intents and purposes for the sport of paintball, shouldn't this still be considered +/- 5? Aren't you guys just being a tad bit anal about a technicality?

Please correct me if I'm way of mark here.

well, range is really a bad why to describe it.

range is simply the difference between the high and low. so when you say 146 shots were +/- 5 i assume you mean, all shots were within 10 fps of each other.

well thats fine and dandy, however, the distribution of those shots within that range are important. this is becuase when we look at probabilistic situations like this, we find that things do not fall under nice neat ranges. they fall under what you might know as a bell curve.

what im saying is this - when you shoot your gun and get a +/-5 range you can have this -

270, 280, 271, 280, 280

or

275, 277, 276, 270, 280

and those to models are VERY different.

so to get a true confidence interval (which is not a range) the standard divation, or the normalized distribution around the mean in important.

when constructing the CI for those two stings of shots we will get very different SD, and thus very different CI.

Let's say I shoot my gun 150 times over the chrono. Of those 150 shots, 146 are within +/-5 fps of each other. However four of them go above this +/-5 by let's say 1-3 fps.

For all intents and purposes for the sport of paintball, shouldn't this still be considered +/- 5? Aren't you guys just being a tad bit anal about a technicality?

Yup, we're being a pain in the butt about a technicality. However, that's the roll that CP and I have decided is needed right now in Paintball. There are tons of claims being made all over the place - and we want to apply real math, real science and real statistics to things and see if the claims are real or marketing.

We're suggesting that the confidence level of most velocity tests is simply too low to mean anything. Yes, in your test with 150 samples you could say with an extremely high level of confidence that your gun shoots a particular consistency.

However, if you read back along this post - most people are claiming +/- XX fps based on a sample of 3 or 4 shots. Using that few samples you simply cannot claim what they're claiming - the confidence interval is far to low.

Basically the confidence interval says how likely you are going to be with a given sample to be within a certain set of values. In your test where 146 out of 150 were within your range - you're great. The same isn't true of a smaller test.

Yup, we're being a pain in the butt about a technicality. However, that's the roll that CP and I have decided is needed right now in Paintball. There are tons of claims being made all over the place - and we want to apply real math, real science and real statistics to things and see if the claims are real or marketing.

We're suggesting that the confidence level of most velocity tests is simply too low to mean anything. Yes, in your test with 150 samples you could say with an extremely high level of confidence that your gun shoots a particular consistency.

However, if you read back along this post - most people are claiming +/- XX fps based on a sample of 3 or 4 shots. Using that few samples you simply cannot claim what they're claiming - the confidence interval is far to low.

Basically the confidence interval says how likely you are going to be with a given sample to be within a certain set of values. In your test where 146 out of 150 were within your range - you're great. The same isn't true of a smaller test.

just checking up on this thread to see if anyone put my shens claim to rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brycelarson

This is the reality that CP and I have come to. His emag got ridiculously good consistency - but only with extreme underboring - too much to be useful in a game situation. Especially with overboring as people tend to do - you're really never going to get to the mythical +/- 2-4 fps that people commonly claim.

i was trying to do this for a while but i never pulled it off. i also tried overboaring like a mother****er just to see how ****ty the paint shot. (i had some jt red paint that you buy in a long 3000 round case) and it rolled through a .679.
how how extreme was it like would you get barrel breaks on every other shot? i was thinking maybe alittle water filled balls (like ones left outside in a humid place) might help because they would mold to fit the barrel, mind you as long as your shooting at like 220 so they dont break in the barrel. (i think a closed bolt gun would work better for this).

__________________
if you have an ebay account and want to make 3$ in paypal for 5 min of your time pm me!Closed Bolt Ballers!

Bryce/CP I think that while your math and theory are sound, the way you're interpreting the question is off. Don't get me wrong, I wish I had the time to do the kind of testing you guys are doing. I've wanted to for a while, due to the horse **** marketing in PB feeds the masses. I think the question at hand is aimed at more simple statistics, however.

The +/- simply means that the deviation from the average shot doesn't exceed that value. So, if I claim +/- 5, and shoot 100 shots, and all of them fall between 270 and 280, that is an accurate figure. I've NEVER seen a gun chrono at +/- 30 that wasn't running CO2 with crap paint. Again, as soon as I can get my Banshee to a chrono, I'll record the readings for 50 shots. Who knows what result I'll get, but I'm willing to do it.

range is simply the difference between the high and low. so when you say 146 shots were +/- 5 i assume you mean, all shots were within 10 fps of each other.

well thats fine and dandy, however, the distribution of those shots within that range are important. this is becuase when we look at probabilistic situations like this, we find that things do not fall under nice neat ranges. they fall under what you might know as a bell curve.

what im saying is this - when you shoot your gun and get a +/-5 range you can have this -

270, 280, 271, 280, 280

or

275, 277, 276, 270, 280

and those to models are VERY different.

so to get a true confidence interval (which is not a range) the standard divation, or the normalized distribution around the mean in important.

when constructing the CI for those two stings of shots we will get very different SD, and thus very different CI.

I never fully understood CI properly
I am going to ask one question though.When we deal with statistics, a lot of the stuff that we do are very arbitrary. For example, evaluating a normal distribution because 68% or more fall under the first SD, 95% in the second Etc is cool and all, but aren't we merely stating this so we can compare some stats we might get here to some others? If we were to all take 3 shots over the chrono and "test" the consistency like that, as long as we all did that, would it not be somewhat representative of what we are trying to achieve?
I guess what you guys are getting at is that it's hard to get a "true" +/- of 5 fps, in a technical way. However, what I don't see is if the OP had in his head that the person were to take a few measured shots to show that their gun shot +/- x, why are we going through all this noz?
Unless the entire idea was to piss everyone off with all this statistical talk which, as interesting as it can be, can be ****ing confusing at times too.
Someone who is knowledgeble, can you please explain the entire referencing CI of 99 or 95 upon the results? I was always told that a CI was that, over time, x % of the shots should fall between this range, (given a normal distribution ?)
although I might have it all wrong

I never fully understood CI properly
I am going to ask one question though.When we deal with statistics, a lot of the stuff that we do are very arbitrary. For example, evaluating a normal distribution because 68% or more fall under the first SD, 95% in the second Etc is cool and all, but aren't we merely stating this so we can compare some stats we might get here to some others? If we were to all take 3 shots over the chrono and "test" the consistency like that, as long as we all did that, would it not be somewhat representative of what we are trying to achieve?
I guess what you guys are getting at is that it's hard to get a "true" +/- of 5 fps, in a technical way. However, what I don't see is if the OP had in his head that the person were to take a few measured shots to show that their gun shot +/- x, why are we going through all this noz?
Unless the entire idea was to piss everyone off with all this statistical talk which, as interesting as it can be, can be ****ing confusing at times too.
Someone who is knowledgeble, can you please explain the entire referencing CI of 99 or 95 upon the results? I was always told that a CI was that, over time, x % of the shots should fall between this range, (given a normal distribution ?)
although I might have it all wrong

the issue is finding the "true mean" vs the "sample mean"

if i want to find the average age of all poeple in the entire world, what do i do?

i decide on what would be a representative sample of the world, poll those poeple, and calculate the mean right?

when we do that we are finding a sample mean.

the question is - how close to the true mean (if you acutally polled everyone on the entire planet) age?

that's where the CI comes in.

so yes, we can do a comparative study by agreeing on a common sample size and say "well that guns three shots are more consistent than that guns three shots"

however, what we really want to know is how consistent EVERY shot from the gun is.

to do this, we are comparing a sample mean (the shots fired over the chrono) to the true mean (the velocity of ALL shots the gun ever fires).

a CI simple compares the variation in the data (standard deviation), with the number of samples taken, and then shows you how accurate to the true mean our sample mean is.

lmao hes shooting an etek and wonders why people claim amazing chrono consistency...btw etek is a mid end and in know way up to other marker standards, if you get a macdev product or a dye product you shouldnt see a shot varrying over 5+/-.
anyone notice that certain markers like to chrono at a certain spot? I find my droid loves 287, It will do a string of 10 and all be on 287, Ill shoot 30 and get little variance, but if I put it up to say 295 it will be less consistent. noticed same thing with some other markers, I call it the consistency grove, I should patent it lol.